Why I Oppose Religious Institutions

Source of their funding

Some conservatives say they don't want any social programs being funded from tax money that comes from the people. People should not have their tax money used for such programs. I can understand such a political belief but what I do not understand is why religious institutions should get funded from tax money then? The hypocrisy.

If even a single cent of your money went to charities connected to the Muslim Brotherhood congratulations, you just funded terrorist and terrorist related activities.

If even a single cent of your money went to the Vatican which is just the Christian version of the Muslim Brotherhood congratulations, your money went to organizations which specialize in stealing and smuggling religious artifacts to be kept in the private museum of the Vatican.

Religious wars

I am sick and tired of being caught up in the middle of religions constantly trying to groom me and try to recruit me into their religions which are nothing more than sects and cults. I don't want to be part of your religion, nor the institutions attached to them, if you cannot respect this we are going to find ourselves in a state of conflict which you are not going to like because I don't believe in hell.

Sheer lack of respect and total disregard of secularity

If there is one of the things religion and their institutions repeatedly disrespect its secular societies and their secular populations. Do you really think that injecting your religious insurgents/missionaries into our countries is going accomplish anything besides more conflict? Look what you are doing to Africa with the battles between Islamic influence and Christian influence.

If that is what you call 'just following your religion' then your god is a god of death, murder and spiritual decay.

Claims of spiritual supremacy

If there is one thing that I detest the most of all about religions and their institutions its the endless claims of religious supremacy. My god is the one true god, our religious book is the one true religious book, my prophet is the real prophet, our virtues are the true virtues. etcetera, etcetera.

These claims are used to justify meddling in affairs that occur in the world without any grounds for improvement. You just want to turn the school programs into religious madness to indoctrinate the youths to follow your religion. In the total theocratic society everything in that society is used as a tool to serve but one master, the religious institution that stands at the top of the hierarchy. Total domination is what your god wants. Not a grain of humanity is left in you religious people.

Most Helpful Guy

BUT:Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, 551 U. S. 587 (2007), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which ruled that taxpayers do NOT have the right to challenge the constitutionality of expenditures by the executive branch of the government. The issue was whether taxpayers have the right to challenge the existence of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.So much for the separation between church and State. It's theory, not reality.

People have the right to choose to raise their kids in a religious way and if they feel like it has to be done by sending kids to religious schools then why object?

Religious schools have never been different to me. There are public schools, private schools. What's with the funding terrorists? Their donations go to sweaters and blankets for poor people or orphanages, why would you oppose that.

You're not only one-sided but also bigoted. All forms of school have good and bad ones. Focusing on just one isn't enough. If a student doesn't feel good in any school then they can simply ask to have their school changed. It's not that difficult to convince.

Well freedom of religion is a fundamental right BUT if it passes the strict scrutiny test it can very well be overturned. Do I think it'll happen eventually? Yes. At least I hope for it. Do I think it'll happen soon? No. Religion is poison. It's made to brainwash. it should be eradicated and its backward approach to a progressive world is daunting.

@katyfenty Girl you are crazy. Freedom of religion will never be overturned. You can't take people's rights away. Men and women fought and died for those rights. If you dont like it... leave the US. Or at least get some help with anger management.

@rissyanne exactly, you can't take peoples rights away thats the very reason why freedom FROM religion will never be overturned. i have that right as much as anyone has all rights that currently exist and i do not tolerate it being violated.

To me God is Nature it self this means every little and big thing in the world from nothing to you to plastic. There is no order, right, wrong. Life has no meaning it's random. We are all actors and life is a movie, we just live the experience.

What Guys Said 23

And atheism is just so much better. Mao, Stalin, Kim Il-Sung, Pol Pot, Robert Mugabe, Mussolini, Hitler (actually to be fair no one ever figured out his religious views conclusively), Himmler, and Nicolae Ceausescu were all atheist, and they were barbarous. Meanwhile, religion has had Martin Luther King, Mother Theresa, and the Dalai Lama. So there, religion is not all bad, and I would argue that the very religious can lead much healthier lives than staunch atheists. So stop whining about the ills of religion when atheist societies and organizations can be just as awful.

Sure, but the grievances I have with religion are ones that are in the US. While OP was mostly rambling on about nothing, I do have a serious problem with religious institutions asking for public grants like they do. If they don't pay into the system, they shouldn't ask for any help from it.

t. small govt Atheist who would like less public money getting spent and collected anyways

But the point is individuals lead institutions. Stalin led the Soviet Communist Party, and Hitler the Nazi Party, whereas MLK led the Civil Rights Movement. My point is that religious institutions are no worse than atheist ones. Religious institutions do do bad things, but they're not all bad and not all money grubbers pilfering our tax dollars.

Yes, and my point is that not all religious institutions wage religious war and murder and ask for money. You're generalizing all religious institutions as having these flaws, when only some do. You can't make generalizations and stereotypes about all religious institutions without evidence that every one of them does the things you mention. For example, the Amish don't wage religious wars or fund themselves through unethical ways, so you can't say that all religious institutions are bad. Do your homework before making assumptions.

Now, do you know who does like to get themselves wrongly involved in politics? CHURCHES. We speculate on the evangelical vote every four years. Congressmen often cite their reasons for voting one way or another as their faith.

There is a serious problem and conversation to be had about the church stepping over its separation boundary.

@DanoMR98 Again, individuals cause problems, not necessarily religious organisations. Some religious organisations do get up to some bad stuff, but that doesn't mean that they are inherently evil. And some are genuinely good [like the Amish and Quakers, for example]. By the way, business lobbies in congress are just as bad, if not worse, than some religious lobbies, so you can't say religious organisations are overstepping their boundaries anymore than businessmen. Yeah, there are religious nutcases who lobby the government, but frankly the Wall Street, non-religious bankers and tycoons overstep their boundaries even more. I get what you're saying and agree to an extent, but I don't think church groups overstep the boundaries as much as the men with money.

Here's the thing, there's supposed to be a separation between church and state. Businessmen are taxed. Churches aren't. Businessmen have stake. Churches don't.

The dynamic between the religion and the government is very unique, and because this case is special, it cannot be equated to business lobbying, which is a totally different thing. Religion because of its very nature needs to be removed from the state, while lobbying from people actually involved in the economy is sometimes/somewhat justifiable. I'm all for shrinking the state in general too, but I don't think institutions that don't pay in should be apart of the process or receive any benefits.

@DanoMR98 Religious institutions aren't taxed, yes, but businessmen manipulate the tax laws so they aren't really taxed either, whereas the lower classes are. Also, businessmen have much more influence over government than religious institutions, that's why I'm saying I think they're worse than religious institutions. And actually businessmen lobbying isn't really that ethical or justifiable. They lobby so that when there's a recession, they make absolutely sure that their companies are bailed out by the government [likes the banks in 2008-09]. We're supposed to be a capitalist country, and stuff like that shouldn't happen, and can really influence the country, that's why I'm saying business lobbies are worse. And frankly, I have more respect for people who are proud of their religion than for people who just want money for themselves and are completely selfish. Business and government should be separated in a capitalist country, unless of course you believe in communism.

The two things aren't comparable because one is constitutionally prohibited and one isn't. Lobbying is speech. Sorry. Churches don't get speech because they're not apart of the system. Pay your taxes and get your speech. Until then, the churches can shut up. Your opinion is unconstitutional, my man.

@DanoMR98 I think you're missing my point entirely. The top 1% own 90% of the nation's wealth. They have lobbyists who fight for their interests and make sure they're carried through, such as the bailout of the banks and GMC in 2008-09. They, therefore, have much influence in the government, and aren't staying true to our capitalist system. Churches lobby to make sure things like Planned Parenthood are shut down, or at least aren't operated with taxpayers' money. Neither or the two are technically breaking any laws by lobbying, as the churches argue in court that their argument is part of freedom of religion and all that. Now, frankly, I think the impact of church lobbies is extremely minimal compared to that of the business lobbies, that's why I think the business lobbies are far worse. Go look up "Requiem for the American Dream" and you'll see what I'm talking about. No, you're right, they aren't comparable, the business lobbies are FAR WORSE.

Now None12am, I don't doubt that you're a principled libertarian, and you are talking about problems that are very real.

I think we can both agree that in an ideal world, govt would be small enough to fit into a suitpocket and if that were the case, there would be no lobbying or corruption.

My argument is that because there is something specifically unconstitutional about church/state coordination in the realm of money & politics, that is a bad thing on a level that other bad things aren't. Bad is bad, bad is scary, but unconstitutional is a nightmare.

@DanoMR98 You see, I get what you're saying, I really do, I just think that in general, a lot of these super-religious hillbillies who do try to influence government just get laughed at a lot and don't seem to get much done, as their aims are very small, whereas a lot of big businessmen get the government to bail out their banks and companies when they're in trouble, and then they up in the President's cabinet despite having no political background and have done nothing for the good of the public, and I think that that is more wrong.

You're wrong if you think that it's just a few hillbillies. Megachurches and televangelists have plenty of political capital and money.

I oppose bailouts, but I think many religious Americans are clawing at the gate that separates the church from the state. If they could affect it any more, believe me, they would.

Also, I'm thinking of the long con. I am much more scared of a future where Muslims have bred out the current population to become the majority. Fuck, I'd rather have the Koch Bros fighting for less govt than the Party for Islamic Law (I just made that up, but it's totally possible) getting donations from the mosques around the country. Right? What if a Scotus decision says that those donations are speech? At least it's morality, right? *elbows, winks* At least it's not some guy trying to further his business, right?*elbow again*

I don't approve of crony capitalism at all, but I tend to think of organized religion as something much scarier.

@DanoMR98 Just so you know, Muslims only make up about 1% of north america or less, and only bout 3-5% in Europe, as opposed to those continents being overwhelmingly white and Christian, so it'd be pretty much impossible for Muslims to become the majority. And actually, even though through natural growth Islam has the edge, many Muslims leave Islam and many people around the world convert to Christianity, so Christianity is actually the fastest growing religion in the world

I agree with your viewpoint fundamentally but for different reasons... I see them as hierarchical organizations of power. With that power comes the negatives of oft spoken power.

And I see no reason to oppose them as entities but for their practices. To me, they are businesses (I maybe go a bit to far with this analogy). And I don't oppose business just because they are profit driven in exchange for services.

I've grown up in Utah where I have seen some of the very best people, who were a part of the LDS faith, and some of the worst. To gloss over the positives of religion is just as bad as the supremacy prejudice they peddle. Some people simply need religion to be better people. I certainly know a few that could use it.. or maybe a bit more spirituality. Maybe even myself. People also need a way to explain what they can not explain themselves. It's when they get irrational about it that I have a problem (credit Neil DeGrasse Tyson).

I agree with the sjoes006 that states that they are simply constructs of society and a way of expressing/identifying ourselves. If not religion, it is politics or even sports (go Bears, packers suck!)

I am a tax accountant who has had non-profit "faith based" charitable organizations as clients. The argument in support of such organizations handling social services as charity is that they have much less overhead and much more efficiency in getting the help to those who need it, rather than setting up a new government bureaucracy or expanding an existing one.

The laws regarding such funding is that all such spending must be for the social service and not a penny to the other church operations. In other words, Catholic Charities (or similar Protestant of Jewish or other organizations) may get government grants to run the soup kitchen, homeless assistance, or charity hospital care, but they cannot use a penny of that money to run other operations or to proselytize. And yes, the I. R. S. has been quite hardball about this.

Note: This is in the USA, and is different from Europe and other countries where the churches ARE often explicitly tax-supported institutions.

Moreover, I just can't put the Catholic Church in the same league as the Muslim Brotherhood. Nowhere near.

Epicurus is making the fallacy of assuming that God is morally obligated to his Creation: He is not.

The negative choices of Free Will are where evil comes from. The God obviously did not want to create "good little robots". He wanted to create "good free moral agents". Evil comes about when free moral agents choose not to be good. So ultimately you should not blame God for evil, you should blame the individual for evil.

A free moral agent which chooses to go good by its own will is better than a robot which is forced to do good. That's the point.

One of the problems I have with "religion" is that they define goodness in a way that almost no human being can ever live up to anyway. In fact, most protestant christian denominations literally teach that you cannot live up to God's standard of goodness, which is called "total depravity".

I can show that there are things in the Bible which must have been inspired by a divinity, because there is no way humans could have known that at the time it was written. However, the Bible is definitely not "inspired and infallible". Some portions of it are just downright fraudulent and blatantly false doctrine and false prophecies.

Examples:Jeremiah somehow knew there was a Multiverse, and Job somehow knew that the Earth was traveling through empty space. The ancient Greeks who were contemporary with them still thought the Earth was flat and floated on an endless sea of water.

@None12am oh so just one sect? because every sect of christanity has paid the blood toll along with islam. if its one sect of buddhism i could not give a fuck. even if it was 2. i thought you meant the average or whole main sect

Look dude it's happened in numerous Buddhist countries by different Buddhist sects, from Burma to Sri Lanka to China to (where they had armed warrior monks who were effectively the Asian equivalent of Crusaders) to China. So it's more than one sect, not all, and by the way, not every Christian sect has engaged in bloodshed (like Quakers. My grandpa was one.).

Well, you've got me there, I'll admit that, but are you saying that killing atheists is somehow worse than killing people who are of a different religion? Come on, people are people, and massacring others is bad no matter who you are.

@None12am yes but I can fully understand slaughtering those Abrahamic bastards they annoy the fuck out of me. if they are only on a killing of them mission I don't mind. if they kill the sane people too than i take true issue

nor would there be such issue if every religion stayed in its respective area. *well that does not apply to that muslim group that always lived there* but most tend to be abarhamic's going into Buddhist territory

So you're saying that atheists are the only sane people? I'm a Christian and I'm pretty sure that I'm sane and morally upright. Also, you're saying we should kill allMuslims because they're all crazy. That's like saying we should kill all Germans just because some of them killed Jews.

@None12am no. but I am less opposed to the killing of an Abrahamic follower if they wander in on a Buddhist majority area and are killed as I know damn well in the past where such happened it happened both ways only it was mostly the Abrahamic followers who conquested and killed many many pagans so I see it as just retribution

I'll admit Islam has been very violent toward non-believers, but as for Christianity, the violence went both ways. The Roman pagans were absolutely horrible to early Christians who'd done nothing wrong, and later the Vikings slaughtered Christians and enslaved them. Also, you can't kill people because of the sins of their ancestors

Again, the pagan Vikings encroached on Holy Rome (they actually invaded it in the 900s or 1000s) so actually pagans started the violence just as much as Christians did. Also, I'm not Catholic, and frankly I'm not crazy about Catholicism so I'm not defending them, I'm just saying pagans, Christians, Muslims, Jews, and Buddhists are as bad as each other

Yeah but that's not because of religious genocide. They voluntarily converted to Christianity in the Middle Ages, then broke with Catholicism and became Lutheran, and today their descendants are the people of Scandinavia, so I don't get what your point is

Yeah, and many Christians didn't encroach on other people's land either, so your point is mute. Also, You could argue that Buddhism "encroached" on other people's land, because it started in India and spread throughout Asia, like Christianity in the Middle East and Europe.

The Vikings didn't convert at the edge of a blade. They converted peacefully. Look it up. My point is, you're saying that it's bad if other religions "encroach" on other people's land, but that's what every religion did, whether by violence or not. And yeah, when the Chinese [who are Buddhist] enlarged their empire, they did sometimes wipe out tribes that weren't Buddhist. In fact, they tried to ethnically cleanse western China in the Middle Ages, and murdered people there who were of animistic, pagan faiths. Look it up

Yes, and my point has been throughout that not all religions or atheists are violent, and none are better than others, and some people of each faith go about peacefully whereas some kill, so I don't understand your point.

@None12am oh some are better than others for if we counted blood even with the Buddhists i would bet my soul it was a less blood count. specially pagans. and atheists. the only crime an atheist has done would be those under communism and that in and of itsself is a religion in essense

The expansion of Christianity in Europe was not purely to spread Christianity, it was so the Byzantines [which I think is what you mean by Holy Rome] could expand their economy. Now that was southern Europe. In northern Europe, Christianity spread peacefully later on through missionary work. As for the Chinese, again, for the most part, it was for economics, but a part of it was spreading their religion and culture. What I'm saying is, for both the Byzantines and Chinese, their expansion was mostly economic with some religious aspects. Now Islam on the other hand I completely agree. Muhammad wanted to spread Islam by the sword and he did just that, very violently, raping and murdering thousands if not millions of innocent people.

But my point is, everyone has encroached on everyone at some point in history. I think that if people have been living somewhere for centuries peacefully [like those muslims in Burma] then you shouldn't touch them, because they're not encroachers thn but part of the land.

Ah, but early Christians weren't violent at all, so you could argue that the quakers and some other groups were just doing the religion as originally intended. By the way, the puritans were messed up though, they did witch trials and burned teenage girls

It's called Freedom of Religion and as far as I am concerned, taxes do not go to churches. People have the option to donate to their religious organization or church. You don't have to join a church if you don't want to go.